DoofersDad

Apologies for not getting back sooner. I'm afraid our activity on Twitter have taken a bit of a back seat this year. It has been an exceptionally difficult year for the few of us who have been trying to keep the Trust in existence with workplace and personal circumstances severely limiting the time we can devote to the Trust. Our longstanding email address of [email protected] and the newly established one of [email protected] are both automatically forwarded to officers of the Trust and therefore if there is an issue you want a response to, then please email us. What we have been doing behind the scenes is to make improvements to the infrastructure of the Trust and we have recently developed a new website at www.ictsupporterstrust.org. There has also been. a fair bit of liaison with the club on a range of issues. To develop the Trust as we would like and to be more responsive over the wide range of social media platforms will require more people to get involved in the work of the Trust on behalf of the wider fan base. We will be saying a lot more about that in the near future.

HT. 1-1 FT. 2-1 ICT. Walsh Opp. Salkeld

HT. 1-0 FT. 1-1 ICT. Sutherland Opp. Vaughan

Thanks for the clarification. It is a good point you make. First, let me say that we are at a very early stage. What has not yet been discussed is an agreed purpose for the Focus Group. That, I hope, will come at the next meeting on September 2nd. What was agreed at Monday's meeting was to open up a specific email address ([email protected]) for fans to submit issues that they would like to have discussed. This email address will be monitored and the issues raised will be collated by a representative fans body and not by the club. This means the agenda is to a significant extent set by the fans, and the fans' representatives at the meeting can ensure these issues are discussed and actions chased up on if necessary. One of the key initial questions must be about how this Group impacts on other routes of communication between fan and club. The club's website currently lists 6 different email addresses on its contact page and individual staff members and Directors will have their own email addresses too. My personal view is that our new email address would be appropriate for issues someone thinks needs discussion between the club and fan groups, but that personal matters or requests for information should be directed to the club as at present. However, as is already clear from emails received, one of the issues is that emails sent to the club are not being replied to. I see the Focus Group being about working collaboratively so that the club's engagement with fans is more effective and, that far from replacing them, one of the outcomes would be an improvement in the existing avenues for communications. That applies not just to emails, but social media and the website etc.

Not sure what you're asking here. This is simply the club engaging constructively with the Supporters Trust and other fans' groups. Surely something to be welcomed by all?

Many thanks for posting this, Robert. As stated in the article, a summary of discussions from the 1st 2 meetings will be published by the club in the next 10 days and if anyone wants a bit more detail after that is published, I will do my best to provide it. This a very welcome and positive development. There has been a lot of criticism of the club in recent years over what is seen to be poor communication, and this initiative provides a regular platform for some constructive 2 way dialogue. Clearly a focus group meeting cannot involve everyone who may want to attend, but we have set up a new email account of [email protected] and would encourage anyone who has any general questions, concerns or ideas which you would like to be raised at a focus group meeting to send them to that address. I will collate the emails and liaise with Scot Gardiner to bring appropriate items to the group. Whilst not everyone can attend, everyone can be involved. With John Robertson and Board Director Gordon Fyffe attending meetings along with the CEO, this is a great platform to ensure that the club is listening to the concerns and ideas of the fans. Fans coming through the turnstiles are the lifeblood of the club and therefore it is important that the club understands what will bring people to the ground and what make them stay away. Equally, it is important that the club clearly communicates the reasons why it can't always deliver what people would like. The creation of the Fans Focus Group is a really positive initiative in enabling this 2 way dialogue, but it will only be a success if the club is made aware of questions, concerns and ideas and discusses them with fans' representatives. I'm glad to say, the first questions have already hit the inbox - so keep them coming! Peter Mutton - Chairman, ICT Supporters Trust

HT. 1-1 FT. 1-2 ICT. Duku Opp. Hamilton

What! A 5-2 home win?

HT 2-0 FT. 3-1 ICT. Walsh Opp Ginnelly

Hmm. I think I'd rather have played Covid Rangers and lost 3-0.

HT. 0-1 FT. 1-2 ICT. McGregor Opp. Vigurs

I wasn't able to see any of the Peterhead match but was greatly encouraged by what others had said. Such a disappointment then to witness this lacklustre performance. When we got the well worked equaliser I thought we would go on to win comfortably. It should have given us a boost but we seemed to drop off the pace, and when we did create chances our efforts on goal were woeful. Fair play to Stirling though. They looked better than some Championship sides I've seen and they moved forward quickly with good movement from players who at times seemed quicker and fitter than us. They looked a real threat on the break and might easily have scored more. We played some tidy football at times with good ball retention and interplay in midfield, but there was a lack of movement up front, we were rarely able to find the defence splitting passes and any crosses into the box were generally poor. As for the defence; being lucky to concede only 2 goals at home against a part time team 2 divisions below us tells its own story. But hey. It was back to watching live football and that is a real positive.

HT. 2-0 FT. 4-0 ICT. Duku Opp. Flanagan

A timely reminder that there is a lot of Covid circulating locally. Everyone at the club has done a tremendous job in trying to keep the club Covid free, so hopefully everyone going to the Stirling game will follow the rules and help to keep it that way.

Definitely need a few more to sign up for this. Only 9 were in it last season and Doofer's Mum came 2nd. That can't be allowed to happen again! Seriously though it is a great little challenge which only takes a couple of minutes to do before each round of league games. It's a bit like betting but without losing any money.

HT. 1-0 FT. 3-1 ICT. Duku Opp. McLean

We signed goalkeeper Ryan Esson from Hereford in 2008. He's still with us as a coach. I doubt many at Hereford remember him though. He only played one game for the Bulls at the end of the season before being released.

Judging from Friday's performance, the person he is most likely to have passed it onto is Mason Mount! But terribly bad luck for the young man who must have been relishing the prospect of playing against Modric and co. Let's hope nobody else tests positive and Scotland can make it through to the last 16.

This announcement just one day after they appoint a new manager! Is this Uncle Roy's way of telling Mackay who makes the decisions about playing personnel?

Terrific achievement from the players and coaches. And what an inspiration for the youngsters coming on behind. It has been such a challenging season in so many ways, so this is wonderfully positive news with which to end the season.

Brechin?

Managed to see most of the 2nd half and thoroughly enjoyed it. Some good play from both sides. One or 2 glitches with the stream but overall a better experience that we've had all season and with the potential for this to be an excellent stream.

If true, that's probably a ploy for the Rangers to give him a substantial pay rise. I've heard it said that their success this year is due more to Beale than Gerrard, and they won't want to lose him. Having said that, he is somebody who may well want to have a managerial career. Taking a head coach role at an ambitious smaller club with the support of someone like Robbo may well be the perfect stepping stone for him, even it it means taking a pay cut. I imagine many of the more established managers would not want to work under a sporting director so I would expect a younger, relatively unknown person to be appointed.

Just because a club is bigger and wealthier does not necessarily give it more negotiating power. In fact, being wealthier means the selling club is well aware that the buying club can afford to pay more if they are really keen on securing the player. There are a range of other factors too, for instance, if a number of clubs are interested in the player then the selling club's negotiating position is strengthened. Obviously a big club won't want to pay a fee when a player leaves on a free, but when they initially buy the player they will have the expectation of selling the player on later and not having the player leave as a free agent. It is a bit of a gamble to pay a little less up front for agreeing to pay up in these circumstances, but more often than not they wouldn't be required to pay and so on balance they are quids in. The benefit to the smaller club is that there is a guarantee of a minimum follow on fee if the players moves on and this can help with financial stability. Accepting a smaller initial fee in return for a clause like that is a bit like paying a slightly higher insurance premium for an increased element of cover.

Ryan's situation is a good example. Obviously I don't know what the contract between ICT and Celtic contained, although we have been told there is a sell on clause. It may be that the sell on clause simply says that we receive a set percentage of any fee Celtic get for selling Ryan on. But there is no reason why the contract between ICT and Celtic couldn't have specified that if Ryan moves on without a fee being payed to Celtic from Club 3, a payment would be made by Celtic to ICT. After all, why should ICT lose out just because Celtic fail to get a fee, particularly as sell on clauses will often mean that the initial fee paid is a bit lower?